Opinion
17-16663
08-23-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO GIVENS, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The stay of proceedings, entered on October 4, 2018, is lifted.
Antonio Givens appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Fultz, 923 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2019), we affirm.
Givens asserts that his career offender sentence must be vacated because Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), applies to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines and renders the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 unconstitutionally vague. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018) ("Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral review.").
Givens next argues that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) must be vacated because § 924(c)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the § 924(c)(3)(A) force clause. This contention is also foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)).
AFFIRMED.